More RAAF Super Hornet

[GTX]

Regards,

Greg

[ysi_maniac]

Thanks for posting

[Captain Canada]

Very nice ! She sure is a modern looking bird compared to the old Hornet.

[Spey_Phantom]

one thing i noticed on the RAAF Superbug on recent pics thats different from the others is that the Aussie SH only have 2 underwing hardpoints rather then the 3 on the US Navy's?

any reason why  , or will they have the 3rd hardpoint afterall?

[B777LR]

The F-111 in RAAF paint somehow still manages to look like a newer design than the Hornet...

one thing i noticed on the RAAF Superbug on recent pics thats different from the others is that the Aussie SH only have 2 underwing hardpoints rather then the 3 on the US Navy's?

any reason why  , or will they have the 3rd hardpoint afterall?

What do you mean? I see 3 possible places to fit a hardpoint under each wing.

[jcf]

Nice pics.

When are you guys going to drop that irrelevant leading 'R' ?

[GTX]

Nice pics.

When are you guys going to drop that irrelevant leading 'R' ?

I assume you refer to the R in RAAF - oh, if only you knew the sillyness that causes...

Regards,

Greg

[jcf]

Nice pics.

When are you guys going to drop that irrelevant leading 'R' ?

I assume you refer to the R in RAAF - oh, if only you knew the sillyness that causes...

Regards,

Greg

Do tell.   

[rickshaw]

Nice pics.

When are you guys going to drop that irrelevant leading 'R' ?

As a republican, I can understand the sentiment but I'm more worried that they might replace it with a "US".   

[Mossie]

I remember someone here saying that the greatest conformist is a non-conformist.  It always seems that in their rush to not be seen as 'British', Aussie republicans adopt US standards instead & call them 'Australian'!  Just go your own way guys.

[Logan Hartke]

I remember someone here saying that the greatest conformist is a non-conformist.  It always seems that in their rush to not be seen as 'British', Aussie republicans adopt US standards instead & call them 'Australian'!  Just go your own way guys.

I think that's going a bit far.  They have Austrian guns, German ships (Spanish soon), Swedish subs, European helicopters and tanker aircraft, an AWACS the US is likely never to operate, and a bomber the US long since got rid of.

If you look at the RAF & British Army, they're not a lot better off.  Granted, the flashier items like the fighters may not have "Made in the USA" stamped on them, but Britain operates the C-17, the C-130, the Chinook, & the King Air just like Australia does.  Add to that Apaches, Sentries, Rivet Joints, Sea King, Tristars, Hueys (Griffins), and Reapers and you get the distinct impression that it's hard not to be American and not be more than a little like the UK, too.

Cheers,

Logan

[Mossie]

I was just taking Rickshaws comment & rolling with it.  I meant it very much as a generalisation & not just about the military.  There are only a few nations that have the luxury of operating almost purely their own equipment.  Russia are probably at the top, the US less so these days as it gets bogged down in it's own trade laws.  France manages to do quite well, some others through isolationist polices like Iran.

[B777LR]

If you look at the RAF & British Army, they're not a lot better off.  Granted, the flashier items like the fighters may not have "Made in the USA" stamped on them, but Britain operates the C-17, the C-130, the Chinook, & the King Air just like Australia does.  Add to that Apaches, Sentries, Rivet Joints, Sea King, Tristars, Hueys (Griffins), and Reapers and you get the distinct impression that it's hard not to be American and not be more than a little like the UK, too.

It is worth mentioning that for quite a deal of these, there was simply no better alternative, if any, around at the time of introduction. Soviet/Russian alternatives aren't a possibility.

The C-17 was the only in-production aircraft of it's size at the time, and they needed it.
The C-130 was the only really good aircraft in it's size. Dunno how it fared against the slightly larger Belfast though.
Chinook was, and still is, the only helicopter in it's class.
King Air was a rather off-the-shelf aircraft, and it had shown to be a really good aircraft. Commonality was the obvious reason to buy more.
Apache: The Tiger would not come for ages, the A129 and Rooivalk were not as good.
Sentry: The Nimrod failed...
Rivet Joint: Only aircraft easily and cheaply available in short times notice, following Nimrod problems...
Sea King: The best aircraft in the world for it's job. It still is today
Tristar: Other options would be the KC-10, KC-747, KC-135 or KC-130, all american. The Tristar was delivered from British Airways.
Griffin: Some sort of American/Canadian/Italian mashup. Dunno why they got it, or what they use it for...

[Logan Hartke]

I'm not saying they weren't good choices, although they weren't the ONLY choices.  In all the cases that you listed but the Tristar (the French went with the KC-135), the Sentry, and the C-130 (albeit in VERY limited numbers), France--for example--either decided they could make do without or they developed their own aircraft, something that was an option for the British.  I'm not saying it's the best solution; French citizens pay a lot of Euros for their nuclear and military-industrial independence that Britain lacks.  It's money that's thrown away without proper exports (see: Rafale), but they don't have the design-by-committee or other problems that shopping outside one's borders can cause.

It was starting to sound very pot/kettle to me, British knocking the Aussies for being so "American", especially when it comes to procurement.

Cheers,

Logan

[GTX]

Their about to had home:

Super Hornets preparing for flight to Australia


The first group of Air Force's next-generation Super Hornets will arrive in Australia later this month, Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Mark Binskin announced today.

The Super Hornets arrival will represent a major leap in Air Force capability.  They are Australia's first new air combat aircraft in 25 years.

A detachment of aircrew and maintenance personnel from RAAF's No. 1 Squadron is currently at Naval Air Station Lemoore in California, preparing the aircraft for the series of flights to Australia.

"This is the beginning of a new chapter for Air Force. The Super Hornet is a true multi-role aircraft that, when flown and supported by RAAF's high-calibre people, will ensure Australia's regional air combat capability edge through to the introduction of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter," Air Marshal Binskin said.

"Reaching this stage of the project on time and on budget has been due to a great partnership between the Royal Australian Air Force, Defence Materiel Organisation, United States Navy, The Boeing Company and their industry partners, General Electric, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.

"The next few weeks will be a very busy time for the Super Hornet aircrew and maintainers at Lemoore.  The detachment is conducting acceptance flights and ground tests on each of the aircraft.

"Another key task for the detachment will be working with an air-to-air tanker, conducting day and night refuelling flights to ensure they are ready for the journey to Australia," Air Marshal Binskin said.

Air Force is acquiring 24 Super Hornets which will progressively arrive at their home base, RAAF Amberley near Ipswich, during 2010 and 2011.

The Super Hornets are an interim replacement for the ageing F-111s.  The F-111s have served Australia well, but are now approaching the end of their operational life, and will be retired at the end of this year.

Details of the Super Hornet welcome activities are being finalised and will be announced closer to the arrival time.

Media note:  Imagery is available at http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2010/Mar/20100303/index.htm

Media contact: Defence Media Liaison: (02) 6127 1999 or 0408 498 664

and now the pictures (click to get high res):

[url/]

More at link in story

regards,

Greg